A bit of building there, and a bit building here, a bit of infilling there, and a bit here, do not seem to have changed much during the last few years. The change is slow and we do not really notice it, until we get continually caught up in traffic jams, we cannot park in our usual space, or we suddenly hear planes continually overhead on a summers afternoon. By then it is generally too late to do anything about it.

However now a really major change is on the way.

The government has now produced “The East of England Plan”, which is in draft form and at the time of going to press, the consultative period has just ended. It proposes that 478,000 new houses to be built between 2001 and 2021, in a fairly well defined area, north of London, particularly up the major road routes such as the A12, and M11, with large developments around Harlow, and to the north of the Dartford crossing. If adopted the plan will super cede the Essex Structure Plan, which was drawn up by the Essex County Council to cover the period 2001 to 2011, and which is very relevant to most of our area. The new plan covers the six counties of Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire.

To date there have been some promising developments. The first is that the East of England Assembly (a non-elected body comprised of the members of the various local authorities (70%) and various appointees (30%), has rejected a government proposal for a further 18,000 houses in the region, and has also specifically excluded from the Plan, the second runway at Stansted, on the basis that the economic argument for a second runway has not been proven. The second is that having approved the Plan (“for massive growth” the Assembly’s words) on the basis that the Government had indicated it would pay for, and put in place the required infrastructure, the Assembly promptly suspended the Plan, when no promise of funding, was forthcoming, from Lord Rooker’s department, despite previous written assurances.

Why, one might ask, has this area been chosen by the government, for growth in the first place, compared with others, who feel deprived and need regeneration. The cynical, and perhaps others, will certainly conclude that politically the government has little to lose electorally, by adopting such a policy in this geographical area and committing themselves to a second runway at Stansted.

We are fortunate in the Colne and Stour valleys, in that most of the extra houses themselves will be located outside of our immediate region. True, the Braintree Council (under the proposed plan) has to make plans to provide for an extra 7,700 houses, between 2001

and 2011, however taking into account the houses already built since 2001, this will be a reduction compared to what was required by the previous plan, and most will be outside the Colne and Stour valleys. Even so there may not be enough “brown field sites” and there could be pressure to find new “ green field” sites. The plan will almost certainly be modified and Braintree District Council, who will almost certainly wish to see a further reduction in their allocation, might have more forced upon them eventually. The government will no doubt try a policy of divide and rule if the Assembly is awkward, as well it may be!

What ever happens, we are certainly going to feel the impact over time. There is bound to be growth in the general infra structure of the area, and there will be pressure on a whole to range of services, required to support an enlarged population, from water, roads, schools, and hospitals, to name but a few. Already it is reported that there is a chronic shortage of GP’s in the Grays/Thurrock area, which is one of those scheduled for major development.

By law the Plan has to be independently assessed for its environmental effects through a Strategic Environmental Assessment. Although the consultants welcomed some aspects of the Plan, they had many reservations, and stated “further development on any significant scale is likely to have serious negative impacts on water resources, biodiversity, tranquillity, air quality, recreation access, and congestion. The larger the development, the harder it will be to avoid flood risk, erosion of quality and distinctiveness of settlements and the built environment and landscape”.

We cannot say we have not been warned.

Of course we cannot say “not in my backyard” and in someone else’s. But what we can do is join with others to suggest modification to the plans, to make them more sensible, taking into account the current relatively rural environment, which we all enjoy. This is exactly what we have been doing on behalf of the membership. We have challenged the premise itself. We have raised questions about a whole range of issues. Water is now getting so short on our area, that if further development does take existing householders may be faced with proposals for reducing their use of water. More houses, more cars, more roads, more congestion, more energy use, more CO2 emissions, more people travelling out of the area to work, more pressure on railways; the list is endless. It has been reported that the deputy prime minister flew over the area, and was heard to comment that he could not understand what the fuss was about, as there was plenty of green land available!! If true, you can see what we are up against.

 

At the time of going to press, the consultative period has just finished, and we are now waiting to see if the plans will be amended in any way. There is still a long way to go before these plans are set in tablets of stone. An independent inspector has to review all the comments and submissions, from the local authorities, and other interested bodies such as ourselves, the general public, and the Strategic Environmental Assessment itself.

It is encouraging that the tone already set by Essex County Council in its preliminary response, that it is too much and has not been thought through, is being echoed by other authorities.

Simon Ward